Organizing for post‐implementation ERP
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The importance of involving subject matter experts (SMEs) in ERP implementations is well established. SMEs' knowledge of business and system processes are critical to conducting gap analyses and configuring enterprise systems. But what happens to SMEs on completion of the implementation phase? Prior qualitative research found that some organizations return SMEs to their old department, which can contribute to knowledge transfer; while other organizations retain the services of SMEs, to assist in ongoing efforts with support and enhancement of the systems. The purpose of this study is to understand post‐implementation organizational choices – when SMEs are retained and returned. The aim is to understand these choices relative to the goals of their project. Theoretically, organizations that return SMEs move toward a distributed or hybrid model, while organizations that retain SMEs employ a centralized functional‐support structure. In accordance with contingency theory, these structural choices should align with an organization's goals and measures of success. Design/methodology/approach This research conceptually builds on prior qualitative research, but is still exploratory in nature. The authors report on findings from an online survey conducted with 65 organizations. The sample included small, medium and large firms. Respondents were key decision‐makers in their organization's ERP initiatives (directors and managers) recruited from two user‐group associations (higher education and health care), primarily from the USA and Canada. Descriptive statistics and t‐tests (when appropriate) were utilized to analyze and report the findings. Findings The hybrid structure (neither completely centralized nor decentralized) was utilized most often (66 percent of the organizations in the sample). The organization's original goals and measures of success did not seem to dictate the final organizational structure, as would be predicted by contingency theory. The authors interpret this as an indication that the choice of structural form is not easily explained based on goals and objectives. They conjecture that devising a structural approach to supporting such a complex inter‐functional system such as ERP requires solving many complex simultaneous organizational problems. Research limitations/implications This research involves a small sample of 65 organizations and is exploratory in nature; hence, it may not be projectable to a larger population. Future research should supplement this study with more industry user groups, expand the sample size, and utilize more advanced statistical methods. Originality/value Previous research has focused on successfully implementing ERP, neglecting post‐implementation design. This study contributes to a growing body of work with regard to post‐implementation design, taking into consideration SMEs and reporting structure, goals, and measures of success utilizing contingency theory as the backdrop.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».